Yes. And for CMP 1.1 we can simply not leave it abstract and have no way to generate anything for it. Bad idea. Monday Morning ;)
Vincent > -----Original Message----- > From: Ara Abrahamian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: lundi 11 mars 2002 7:45 > To: 'Vincent Harcq'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Xdoclet-devel] Ejb:finder : why not do the same > as ejbHome > > > This is true for BMP but for CMP you don't define the > ejbFindblabla method in bean impl class actually, only in > home intf. But I don't think we may break any container. > > Ara. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:xdoclet-devel- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Vincent Harcq > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:26 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] Ejb:finder : why not do the same as ejbHome > > > > Hi, > > Why could we not forget @ejb:finder class tag and do the same as > > ejbHome. That means we should defined > > > > /** > > * @ejb:finder-method ... > > */ > > public abstract Collection ejbFindByName(); > > > > The only (and very valid) reason why we should maybe not is > that some > > containers does not require to define those and when > defining them, we > > could simply break the container deployer. > > > > The point is that they are very similar to ejbHome methods > at the DD > > level of transaction and security and having to take a different > > approach looks a bit strange. > > > > Sorry if this question already arises before ;) > > > > Vincent. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
